US ends ban on New Zealand naval ship visits

I suspect this has more to do with the perceived growing military threat from China than anything else.

We have a tendency to assume our friends owe us obedience, they do not.

this dust up didn't need to happen at all, I'm glad we have a sane Admin. in office that can get beyond these petty gestures and look at the big picture. Like I said, I think this has a lot to do with the perceived growing military threat from China in that region of the world.

because we reciprocated?

How you arrive at that conclusion is a mystery to me. It's only possible if you truly believe that New Zealand implemented it's "no nukes" policy specifically to piss off the United States. Is that what you are asserting?

it is just that they can't ban US ships (and US ships are the only ships that their policy could have reasonably be directed at) and then turn around and bitch when there are negative consequences.

So, New Zealand did NOT "poke us in the eye". Now your problem is rather that they implemented a policy they had every right to, then complained about the consequences of it. The trouble I have with that is that the article in the OP does not contain any description of NZ "bitching" about it. As far as I can tell (given the information at hand) they accepted the US actions with a song in their heart.

However it does appear to me that the US COULD have responded to NZ's "no nukes" policy by simply acknowledging their sovereign right to implement such a policy, then expressing regret that it meant that US ships would henceforth be unable to dock at NZ's ports. I understand the US taking such a position, as they could not have simply allowed ships without nukes to dock there since this would be identifying to everyone which ships did and which did not carry nuclear weaponry.

What I do not understand, and in fact find childish and petty, is the US decision to suspend it's defense treaty with NZ in apparent retaliation. Such an act was unnecessary and appears to be an attempt to bully NZ into changing it's own national policies to accommodate us.

then how is a defense treaty suppose to work? "We want you to protect us but you are not welcome here" is not the foundation of a good working relationship, don't you think?

NZ implemented their policy understanding that the US navy was the only navy that it really applied to. Why is it unreasonable to think that America would view it as a fundamental shift in the US - NZ relationship and act accordingly?

why would you defend a country that wouldn't allow most of your navy to dock there?

24/7/365

Just a thought.

not since they retired the TLAM-Ns. The nuke ASROCs went away when the Soviet Union fell.

Secondly, the ban included nuclear powered ships - which means all US submarines and carriers.

See post #39.

In any case, I am sure NZ's nuclear free policy is based on their societies' concern over nuclear weapons/power and not any "eye-poking" desire towards the US.

ps - I don't think defense treaties are the best way to maintain peace anyway.

http://www.nukestrat.com/us/navy/OPNAVINST5721_93.pdf

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2007-07-01/india/27960928_1_uss-nimitz-nuclear-weapons-admiral-john-terence-blake

"We can neither confirm nor deny the presence of weapons on board the ship. The general US policy it that we can neither confirm nor deny the presence of weapons on board the ship. We do not routinely deploy nuclear weapons on any of our ships, attack submarines or aircraft,"

^^^^Translation: "Yes"

including nuclear power plants in their country. If surface ships don't have nukes, they would have been allowed.

It's not a "poke in the eye" aimed at the US. It's a principled stand based on cultural values including respect for the mauri or life-generating ability of the environment.

But leave it to the US to assume it's all about them and to "reciprocate" like a three year old.

because it has always been US policy to neither confirm or deny the presences of nuclear weapons. NZ knew that.

NZ in essence said "we want your military protection but you are not welcome here." Not the basis of a working relationship, don't you think?

NZ implemented their policy understanding that the US navy was the only navy that it really applied to. Why is it unreasonable to think that America would view it as a fundamental shift in the US - NZ relationship and act accordingly?

France was much more on their minds after the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior in 1985, a Greenpeace vessel bombed in Auckland Harbour by French intelligence agents to stop it from protesting nuclear testing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior

This was a seminal event in NZ history. There are numerous tribute plaques and murals to the Rainbow Warrior around New Zealand and the crew are considered heroes.

The UK and Russia also have sizable nuclear fleets.

Also, New Zealand, being a Commonwealth nation, has much stronger security ties to the UK, Canada and Australia than it does to the US. It is not asking for military protection but then banning ships.

and visited NZ ports?

The ANZUS Pact was NZ's primary defense treaty - the US, as the dominant military power in the region, was NZ's true protector during the cold war. The UK and Canada were in no position to provide military protection to NZ.

Now that the cliche "genie" is out of the bottle, I may very well have had the chance to be born due to our MAD capabilities, part of which consists of our submarines.

They're nuclear powered, not nuclear armed.

I did a little more reading and indeed the ban is on both nuclear weapons and power.

Regardless, the subs are confirmed to carry nuclear weapons and you can bet your bottom dollar that aircraft carriers, cruisers and guided missile destroyers do too(not-confirmed nor denied means absolutely yes).

Seriously, I don't see why more countries aren't doing this

...it amazes me it's taken this long to put it behind us.

Who knew?

and a pretty good one too.

The New Zealand Navy comes out to play.

constitute a "pretty good navy"?

Really?

pretty good as far as discipline and fighting tactics, I didn't mean quantity, I meant quality. I should have stressed that. Sorry about that.

The fact remains that New Zealand's miniature military (it scrapped its combat air force in 2001) necessitates a reliance on allies for defense, especially Australia.

that certainly wasn't my intentions and I apologize. You are correct on the fact that because of their bare essentials military, they do rely heavily on their allies, which now, apparently, include the US again.

Or should they go nuts like us?

and trying to start wars, you don't need "Defense" spending that bankrupts your country.

Compare this to New Zealand, which spends about 1% (!) on defense.

It is, however, an indication of the degree to which a country is willing to spend its national treasure on defense.

Politicians and talking heads tend to use it when they they want to minimize the cost of whatever item is under scrutiny(in this case, military)

The appropriate percentage to look at is that of the budget, because that is how much money the country actually has to do stuff. It's not like we can raise the tax rate to 100%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_New_Zealand

Vietnam, Iraq and more.

I was aware of that but there is a difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_wars

I appreciate the infolinks, but you are not teaching me anything new. I am aware that they have not been saints.

My original post was to point out the comedy in the implication that 10 warships was somehow not good enough for the small nation.

does not mean anything.

Just because they are smaller?

The US took the lead role in instigating those conflicts, and was in charge of making oppressive political/social policies in both occupations.

and they have strong allies should they ever need help.

Plus when was the last time there was some upheaval or major crises and the world said "well, where is New Zealand on this? When are they going to finally get involved?"

I know there's always that American reflex to piss on any country that doesn't have a great-power level military, but you guys aren't the yardstick.

with virtually no offensive punch (which is kind of the point of having warships) as a "pretty good" navy.

AUCKLAND, New Zealand — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta found himself nose-to-nose with a band of chest-beating Maori warriors Friday, demonstrating the lengths to which the Obama administration is willing to go to bolster its military presence in Asia and the Pacific.

---

In a reversal of long-standing U.S. policy, Panetta also announced the effective lifting of a 26-year ban on visits by New Zealand’s navy to U.S. bases. The ban was imposed after New Zealand created its nuclear-free zone and prohibited U.S. ships and submarines from visiting its ports unless they declared they were not carrying nuclear weapons, which the Pentagon has refused to do.

In exchange, Panetta received a warm welcome but few concessions. Coleman, the defense minister, said New Zealand had no intention of reciprocating by allowing U.S. ships to visit its bases.

---

Coleman did say that New Zealand was eager to engage in more joint military exercises with U.S. troops and noted that a team of U.S. Marines had visited the country in April. “We welcome the renewed U.S. emphasis on this part of the world,” he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nose-to-nose-panetta-pushes-asia-strategy-in-new-zealand/2012/09/21/caea5b14-03da-11e2-9b6e-f3b809aa1542_story.html

It's funny how you grow up with this knowledge but I'd completely forgotten about it.